Expert Says Gasoline Prices Could Drop To $3.50 Per Gallon By Labor Day

According to Phil Flynn, Vice President and Senior Market Analyst at Alaron Trading, gas prices nationwide have been recently reduced about $.05 per gallon and he says this is just the beginning. He predicts that gas prices could go down to $3.50 a gallon by Labor Day (Sept. 1st).

According to CBS2′s article,

“We saw a substantial drop in the price of crude oil, which it appears gas station owners were in a hurry to pass on to consumers,” said Phil Flynn, Vice President an Senior Market Analyst at Alaron Trading.

“So often we hear gas prices rise like a rocket and drop like a feather, this time, they’re starting to drop like a rock and that’s a good thing,” Flynn said.

That’s partly because demand is down about 4 percent from where it usually is. Many people have put the brakes on driving this summer because it costs too much.

“We could see $3.70 in the city and if we get really lucky, maybe $3.50 by Labor Day,” Flynn said.

Yes, there is a fine line between educated speculation and full on media whoring, but does Phil look like the kind of guy who would simply say what we all want to hear, just to get his name in the news? Ok, don’t answer that.

Expert: Gas Prices Dropping Like A Rock [CBS2]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. sleze69 says:

    ALL energy needs to be considered to be utilities and not just electricity.

  2. DashTheHand says:

    Its sad when $3.50 is something to be excited about. Bring back sub $2 gas….

  3. bohemian says:

    Meh. Were still not going to increase our driving. Our SUV will still stay parked most of the time and we will still be working on building an electric car.

    It might go down for Labor day but it will go right back up due to the next manufactured crisis.

  4. nataku8_e30 says:

    Man, I’m still fairly torn on gasoline prices. I like the reduction in SUVs, pickups and frivolous or aggressive driving, but on the other hand I’d like the economy to stop sucking so hard and the stock market to go back up. Also, in all fairness I don’t think those positives I listed really took effect yet in Houston.

  5. linkura says:

    Gas has gone down 30 cents a gallon here in Columbus, OH. I just figure it’s the calm before the storm.

  6. I don’t see any reason why oil companies will lower gas prices. The price of crude may drop, but Exxon/Mobile, BP, etc have no reason to lessen their profits. As much as we try, we can’t just stop needing gasoline/diesel so quick. The article says demand has dropped 4%; even if that’s true, pump prices have risen at least 20-30% in the past year. So they’re still way in the black. Right now, pump prices around my area are about $4, so even if it does drop 10 or 20 cents, it’ll be back up soon. I bet oil companies just want to get people back in the driving mode again, then the prices will come back up because **shakes magic 8-ball** the anniversary of 9/11; or **shakes magic 8-ball** they can get away with charging it.

  7. tasker0 says:

    I predict that this expert knows nothing more than anyone else. I’m no expert, I see the price falling, and I think, hmmm… it might fall a little further, hmm… it’s trending downward. Said expert should have spoken up when gas was rising, but maybe he was the one predicting $200 a barrel oil. As far as I’m concerned–$100/barrel or $200/barrel, both are still on the table given the general volatility (pardon the pun) of petroleum in the last 18 months, but then again, I’m no expert.

  8. davere says:

    Several months ago I predicted that gas would start coming down more and more the closer we got to the elections. I hope I was right and this trend just started.

  9. Bladefist says:

    Bush removed the ban on offshore drilling, oil drops $9. It will take a little bit to feel it in the gas pumps.

    I suspected this would happen. To those of you who think gas wont go down because of the profits, you have a misunderstanding of how oil/gas works.

    It has a fixed margin. Or relatively fixed. So when crude goes down, gas goes down. However, don’t forget there are other reasons why our oil is so high. Weak dollar, etc etc.

    Also don’t forget there is competition. And regulation. They compete for your business, and there are regulations on gouging. So relax. Take good news. We hear it so little

  10. pockygt says:

    So are these the same experts that said that gas would be $5 by labor day not too long ago?

  11. k6richar says:

    @davere: Same thing happened last election. Will happen this election too, oil companies need to keep republicans in power and the higher gas prices are hurting the republicans chances of getting reelected. As soon as the elections are over gas prices will shoot back up and oil companies will go back to record profits and huge tax breaks.

  12. This is just big oil being greedy! I find it dubious that all of a sudden oil companies got less “greedy”. Per chance could the prices be independent of the oil companies “greed”, and instead be based on other factors?

  13. acknight says:

    @Bladefist: Why would a symbolic lifting of a ban on offshore drilling (symbolic because it’s still banned by Congress) cause anything?

  14. @Bladefist

    I’m afraid that I also need to disagree with your line of thinking. I sincerely, and strongly doubt that Bush’s attempt to be “seen to be doing something” (not singling him out, as any politician would likely have made the same move) has anything to do with the drop in gas prices. I agree that this IS good news, and we can hope that this will continue, but I am not holding my breath.

    Even if they were able to start drilling off the coast of the US we wouldn’t see any increase in the supply of oil in at least a couple years. I’m not an expert on building oil rigs, but:

    A) those things are expensive, and IMO the cost of building new ones will be passed onto consumers.

    B) They also take a significant time to build.

    I’m sorry, but increasing the flow of oil only sustains our dependence on oil as an energy source. I’m certainly not an Al Gore fan, and I think a more realistic compromise between the 2 points of view needs to be found to move us away from fosil fuel technology.

    /soapbox

  15. dallasmay says:

    HA HA HA!!!! OH my gosh! We have reached a day when $3.50 gas sounds Awesome! Why would ANYONE vote Republican this year?

  16. TouchMyMonkey says:

    @Bladefist: Do you really believe the same President who said he didn’t have a ‘magic wand’ that reduces oil prices could, uh, wave a magic wand…er…executive order and reduce oil prices? I’ll settle for the Econ 101 answer to this question and say it’s because the market simply won’t support $150 oil.

    Of course, this is an election year, so Republicans will claim just about any cockamamie thing hoping people will buy it.

  17. wgrune says:

    @acknight:

    Because the mere thought of us getting even a small percentage of our oil needs from someone other the OPEC may have been enough for them to shudder a little bit. Symbolic? Yes. Effective? It seems that it may have been.

  18. ndjustin says:

    @dallasmay: Perhaps because they are the only party purposing something that would lower the cost of gasoline? You do understand that the regulation happy democrats have controlled congress for the last two years which was the start of the gas spike.

  19. acknight says:

    @ndjustin: And what has the Democrat-controlled Congress passed in those two years which regulates Oil or Gasoline?

    The Congressional ban on offshore drilling has been in place for a lot longer, and Republicans had 12 years in control to overturn it if they wanted to.

  20. Wormfather is Wormfather says:

    I aggree, but I really thought we’d hit $5 first.

  21. Bladefist says:

    @acknight: Due to speculation, and oil being traded like shares. When something sparks a little fear in the market, people sell sell sell, just like in the stock market. People who owned barrels of oil freaked.

    @TakingItSeriously: This is not about Bush. And I don’t think Bush did it to make oil go down the $9. There is not a supply problem, so we can wait. While we are waiting, the speculation of us being independent will continue to drive oil down. Oil is NOT high right now because of supply/demand. Please understand this.

    Forget about Alternative energy. It’s not going to happen. It doesn’t even exist yet. You think they cant build an oil rig, faster, and cheaper, then finding alternative fuel for cars that doesn’t even exist today? The current solutions will not be adopted. We keep talking about these other solutions as if they exist. Hydrogen is the closest thing that could maybe someday work, but we are a long way from that. More then 10 years I would guess. Gotta build all new ‘gas’ stations.

    @HurtsSoGood: Presidents/Congress can and do make comments that often affect the markets. Bush’s comment realistically means nothing, but it put a little fear in the speculators.

    The market will support $150 a barrel. With there being no other Alternative. Also our demand is down 2-5%, which puts more fear into the market.

    Renewable energy doesn’t exist. It breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Don’t let politicians and media sell you ideas that don’t even exist.

    Democrats this week in congress proposed a 10 cent per gallon tax increase. So there you go. Who is trying to help?

  22. basket548 says:

    @TakingItSeriously:
    To second Bladefist, the price of gas is almost completely unrelated to the infrastructure and companies refining gasoline, and almost completely mirrors the cost of oil in the futures market, which has no rhyme or reason how it works. Some days economic data are brushed off as irrelevant; some days the president saying the word ‘oil’ causes the price to move by 5%.

    Know what the single best indicator for the price of oil in 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, or a year is? The current price of oil.

  23. nutrigm says:

    EVERYONE CALL YOUR CONGRESS TO BAN THE SPECULATION ON OIL! THAT ALONE WILL CUT COST PER BARREL DOWN 30-40%! WHY AM I SHOUTING? I forgot to disable capslock :P

  24. cf27 says:

    @heavylee-again: If you believe that oil companies have that much control over their prices, then why is gas not at $6.00 a gallon or $10.00 a gallon. If oil companies could just increase profits by increasing pump prices, then why did they ever let me buy gas at $0.79 a gallon (in 1999)? They would have made a lot more money charging me $4.00. Why would oil companies ever reduce prices?

  25. JediJohn82 says:

    Gas is already $3.50 a gallon in Oklahoma :D

  26. mthrndr says:

    @dallasmay: Maybe because of the do nothing, disastrous democrat-controlled congress?

  27. Imaginary_Friend says:

    @nataku83: Even if it does go down again, I think the damage is done. The days of everybody and their grandma owning a SUV are over. I think we Americans have really learned our lesson this time (hopefully!).

  28. backbroken says:

    If every factor that goes into the price of gas breaks in our favor, gas prices could drop to $3.50/gallon by Labor Day!!!

    On the other hand, they could go to $5.50/gallon if any of the following occurs:

    -a hurricane hits within 1,000 miles of a refinery
    -an act of terrorism
    -some anonymous Saudi oil sheik sneezes
    -China gets pissed that Kobe Bryant dunked on their basketball team in the Olympics and decides they want their money
    -any one of a thousand negative items that gets into the news cycle that could be used as an excuse to raise the price of oil

    But yeah…we could see $3.50 by Labor Day.

  29. TouchMyMonkey says:

    @Bladefist: “Bush removed the ban on offshore drilling, oil drops $9.”

    Are you denying you said this? Maybe you’re NOT trying to help sell this “change the psychology” nonsense, but this quote does clearly show an A -> B relationship, in other words, you are making the assertion that Bush made oil go down nine bucks a barrel (it’s now $20; you probably haven’t gotten to this morning’s paper yet) with the stroke of a pen, after he stated for the record maybe a week or two ago that such a thing was not possible.

    I still believe, as do most of us here, that oil hit a brick wall at $145, people started calling in their chits, and now oil is at a much more realistic level, although I also think oil has a ways further to drop.

    [www.wtrg.com]

  30. Tmoney02 says:

    I think said “expert” should no longer be called an expert. Especially when their proof is a 5 cent temporary drop in price.

  31. Jaysyn was banned for: http://consumerist.com/5032912/the-subprime-meltdown-will-be-nothing-compared-to-the-prime-meltdown#c7042646 says:

    @Bladefist:

    “Renewable energy doesn’t exist. It breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Don’t let politicians and media sell you ideas that don’t even exist.”

    Nice logical fallicy

    a.) Pebble Bed Reactor

    b.) Hydroelectric Power

    c.) Solar Power

    d.) Geothermal Power

    e.) Wind Power

    Please explain how these aren’t for all intents & purposes renewable forms of energy, or kindly stop spreading bullshit. Thank you.

  32. Suttin says:

    @Tmoney02:

    Gas here is $3.79, down from $4.00

    I think said expert is still an expert.

  33. Puck says:

    @Jaysyn:

    Exactly, he’s just laughably parroting these fascist oil men and the small-minded who don’t think that there’s a better answer. The sun is just a giant light bulb that Jesus is holding, too!

  34. basket548 says:

    @Jaysyn:
    They’re what we term ‘renewable energy’ in the sense that the sun will essentially replenish all these things over the course of our use of them, something that happens far more slowly (but does happen!) with oil.

    Yes, 2nd law of thermodynamics prohibits creation of energy, but solar and wind power are, for our purposes, limitless.

  35. kidincredible says:

    @Jaysyn: Technically it should be called transferred energy, because in all of those situations, it’s being harvested from other forms of energy.

    Renewable is a misnomer only in that you’re not REUSING the exact same energy that you used in the first place. You’re not harnessing the heat from the electric motor powered by a solar panel to power it again.

    It’s as simple as you’re both using the same term with slightly different definitions in mind. Are either of you wrong? No, you’re just arguing the same point with different words.

  36. ratnerstar says:

    Wow, normally the second law of thermodynamics only gets misused by boring old creationists; now it’s moved into the sexy new realm of fossil fuel advocacy. It must be so proud.

    The price of oil (and therefore the price of gas) fluctuates in the short term due to any number of factors. It’s very hard to predict. What’s quite easy to predict is that, over the long term, prices will continue to rise. Supply is at a plateau, with no realistic reason to expect that to change. Meanwhile, demand from the BRICs is surging. Guess what? Prices are going to go up.

    If gas prices fall to 3.50, the smart move would be to tax gas to get it back to 4 bucks a gallon. Some of that revenue could be diverted to help low income commuters and truck drivers or whatever, but the US needs to get used to high gas prices now.

  37. ARP says:

    @mthrndr: @ndjustin:

    I’ve avoided the blame Bush attack because it’s so easy and I don’t always like grinding this down into a political debate, but it appears you’re after the Democrats so here goes:

    1) Please tell me all the specific things Congress has does to impact oil prices. Everyone admits that even if we lifted the ban on offshore drilling right now, it would take at least a few years to see its impact (which will be in the range of 1-3%). In fact, we’ve reduced our consumption by a few points (which those dumb libruls wanted) and gas has dropped quite a bit. So, I guess they caused the drop in gas prices? Its no different than saying Bush’s comment on drilling caused prices to drop.

    Here are real things that affect oil prices:

    1) Our dollar is worthless right now. A certain administration caused or contributed to this by reducing the interest rate in response to every economic problem.

    2) Supply is curtailed because Iraq is mostly offline. Before the war, we didn’t buy from Iraq, but they put oil onto the global market.

    3) We’re threatening Chavez, he’s threatening with his oil. This scares oil traders.

    4) We’re threatening Iran. This scares oil traders.

    5) The economies of India and China (Bush is off the hook for this one).

  38. Bladefist says:

    @HurtsSoGood: That was a market reaction from his speech. He didn’t enact a bill/regulation, etc to cause that to go down. And it was not guaranteed to go down. Thus, no magic wand.

    @Jaysyn: Ha. You showed your intelligence. Study Physics before you come at me. The sun doesn’t create energy. It transfers. I think its cute when people with no background in science come after a college grad who understands physics, chemistry, and the rest of that hoop-la.

    I understand the science, so I know the “renewable” energies are bs. I told you. Hydrogen is the only one even remotely close.

    BTW, coal is a “renewable” fuel. It comes from plants. So we already went green! yay.

    Now go back to relying on technologies that don’t exist, while your politicians sell you general ideas w/ 0 explanation, and are behind closed doors raising your gas prices while you blame the only man who lowered them. Even if it was an accident :)

  39. MissTicklebritches says:

    Flynn has just been named SVP of Wishful Thinking.

  40. ARP says:

    @Jaysyn: I think Bladefist might be commenting on some of the gas substitutes that people are pushing:

    1) Corn based ethanol is a huge scam because its energy negative (more energy to create than comes out of the system). The problem is that its politically expedient because of all the midwest voters. Actually a diverse supply would be ideal (switchgrass, sugar, etc.) and these plants are more energy positive. Also, theres a lot of strides being made to increase the efficiency of the process by using bacteria, solar power, etc. to do some of the work.

    2) Hydrogen is unrealistic and will be for some time. Which is exactly why Bush is pushing it. It shows he’s doing something without doing anything. Did you know Bush proposed creating the new Hydrogen economy by using oil.

    3) Solar, wind and tidal have huge potential as increased efficiency and reduced production costs have reduced the cost per KW to below coal (after transportation costs and tax subsidies are factored). There seems to be a lot more innovation that can be done in these areas. BTW- guess who’s making most of these innovations? Universities and not the “free market.” Universities are funded by taxpayer money. Socialists!

    4) Nuclear power is an option, but one that scares liberals and conservatives alike. But they can be built and operate safely.

    5) Electric cars have huge potential. They need need to work on the range and recharge times, but they could be a boom. It will take some additional energy, but not as much as you think because they’ll mostly be recharging at night, when demand on the grid is low. Yes, there might be some pollution from the electricity, but it is MUCH less than what the individual cars combined would produce.

  41. Bladefist says:

    @kidincredible: We’re not both right. I’m right. I’m sick of Al Gore/Government making up terms that sound awesome. Renewal energy does sound awesome. I know what they mean, but they are misusing the word to sell their ideas. Call it what it is. Expensive ways to harvest inefficient energy that protects the earth from an unscientific crisis. See. Easy.

  42. ThunderRoad says:

    Of course prices are going back down. Memorial day to 4th of July is prime season for gouging. Even with demand down, they still raise the prices. Now they will start falling so they can skyrocket to 5 bucks next April.

  43. Bladefist says:

    @ARP: Ya. I’m glad you got my point.

    Some notes:

    4) Nuclear doesn’t scare conservatives and liberals. Europe has gone nuclear, and Europe is vastly liberal. Nuclear scares people who are unaware of the advances in nuclear technologies.

    5) Electric cars are inefficient. That said, if we adopted them, the grid wouldn’t be low at night anymore, everyone would be charging their cars. If we are still on coal, that would bring us back to global warming.

  44. crazyralph says:

    So here’s what happens:
    1. The ban on offshore drilling is lifted
    2. OPEC floods the market dropping the price per barrel.
    3. Oil companies announce it’s not profitable to drill.
    4. Near total dependence on OPEC continues.
    5. Repeat every 10 years.

  45. Jaysyn was banned for: http://consumerist.com/5032912/the-subprime-meltdown-will-be-nothing-compared-to-the-prime-meltdown#c7042646 says:

    @Bladefist:

    Head, meet sand. You two should get along nicely.

  46. AD8BC says:

    @Bladefist: I think alternative energy will happen. It will just take a while and we need the oil for that little while until the transition is made — maybe 20, 30 years.

    The problems facing alternative energy are the following:

    * Research — yes, lots of research has been done, there have been improvements.

    *

  47. Bladefist says:

    @Jaysyn: Awesome argument. I’ll take that as you concede.

    I don’t know why you guys cant be happy. Gas is going down. You didn’t think it would? Supply remains high, there is no shortage. It has to come back down. Just like our dollar will go back up. The media hates good news.

  48. Tmoney02 says:

    @Bladefist: That was a market reaction from his speech.

    Have proof that it was specifically his announcement that caused the market to react to such a degree as to drop prices $9? Or could it possibly just be a coincidence and/or the market reacting to other news.

  49. Puck says:

    @Jaysyn:

    Oh you just wait, he’ll be winning that Nobel Prize any day now, and then he’ll show you! Remember, he is “a college grad who understands physics, chemistry, and the rest of that hoop-la.”

    /me throws his Master’s degree in the trash

  50. LochBox says:

    Good News if you live in Oklahoma (which I’m sure most of you don’t) gas is already down to $3.47 at some stations. Not sure if that is with or without alcohol.

  51. AD8BC says:

    @AD8BC: whoops!

    * Development — These things take time, I’m talking about both vehicles and infrastructure (piping hydrogen to hydrogen stations, installing natural gas compressors in homes so you can fill up there.

    * Early adoptors — New technology will cost — a lot — and you need the rich folk to buy them first and spark demand. We certainly don’t want to make people have to get really bad car loans, do we?

    * Need the technology to stick — at the Breakers mansion in Newport, RI, when it was built so long ago, the lighting was half electric and half gas because the owners didn’t know if electricity would “catch on”. I would hate to buy a hydrogen car and then, alas, it doesn’t catch on. If I had to buy a new technology car, I would keep my old gas guzzler around just in case.

  52. ARP says:

    @Bladefist: Please tell me why alternate energies are BS. Can you provide a link that supports your assertion that all alternate energy forms are energy negative. The only one I agree with you on is Corn based ethanol. What about all the others?

    Here are a few of mine [[www1.eere.energy.gov]]
    [[www.awea.org]]
    [

  53. Bladefist says:

    @Tmoney02: Well, like a hour after his speech it dropped. Everyone, pretty much figured it was his speech. But it *could* have been something else. The point I was making is, oil can jump up or down on a whim. And the only important oil news of the day was Bush’s speech.

    @Puck: Well generally most degrees are trash. But the fact remains, I p0wned you guys in science.

  54. Jaysyn was banned for: http://consumerist.com/5032912/the-subprime-meltdown-will-be-nothing-compared-to-the-prime-meltdown#c7042646 says:

    @Bladefist:

    There isn’t any debating with you & when people try you resort to ad hominem attacks & logical fallicies instead of refuting your or their points. Either way you are going to push your agenda, ignore factual information & valid points, so why bother?

  55. Bladefist says:

    @ARP: I never said anything about ‘negative’ energies. So I don’t provide references for things I don’t say.

  56. ratnerstar says:

    We’re all misunderstanding bladefist. It’s not that he’s talking out his ass, or intentionally confusing issues, or spreading complete FUD; it’s just that he’s taking the long term view. In the long term, entropy increases and the universe dies. Kudos to him for seeing the big picture.

    Small picture people like you and me, concerned only with, say, the next millennium or so, might say that solar energy is renewable for our purposes, as are wind, geothermal, and various biofuels. And we might say that coal and oil aren’t renewable, merely because it would take millions of years to renew them. But that’s because we’re stuck in the short term.

    Clearly, if only the rest of us were college grads, we might be able to comprehend this.

  57. crabbyman6 says:

    @Bladefist: First, congratulations on graduating(?)

    Why don’t we call oil what is is then? A temporary, albeit long term, solution to providing dirty energy for the world. In this case the term renewable doesn’t stand for some kind of cold fusion reactor, as you’re insinuating, but for harnessing energy that’s already present in the world anyway and most people realize that as the case, its just a term. Yeah, that would just be horrible, Mother Nature doesn’t have very deep pockets and that would certainly offend repubs. As for calling it expensive, yeah, oil is SUPER cheap, I know what you mean. Its only a few million to find an appropriate place to first test drill and then actually decide on. Then, its only a few hundred million for an oil rig that produces at its peak for a year or two and is worthless after 12 or so. Plus the cost of shipping and refining the oil and then shipping the finished product, that stuff is so cheap. The real cost of alternative energy, and most things, is the R&D. I’m sure oil did and still does spend billions to try to get this process down, I’m just too busy right now to look into it.

    The real problem is the only people getting any kind of money for new energy sources are universities, which are often one project of many the investigator is involved in. Plus you’re basing all your advances on underpaid and overworked grad students. You’re right, currently this stuff is expensive, but give it as much money and half the time as oil has had and we’ll see what it costs and how efficient it can get. But that will never happen because when it comes to alternate energy we need it NOW, but when it comes to oil(ie offshore drilling) 15 years from now is fine and dandy.

  58. Bladefist says:

    @ratnerstar: I never created FUD for saying the sun was going to burn out. Merely pointed out, it was not renewable and the term was being misused. :)

  59. ratnerstar says:

    You can’t create new FUD, bladefist, only transfer it to different forms.

  60. crabbyman6 says:

    @Puck: Almost forgot, that comment is pure win.

  61. crabbyman6 says:

    @Bladefist: In that case oil is renewable too. Once the sun burns out and supernovas destroying the Earth there won’t be any more oil either, therefore oil is renewable energy also, according to you, and therefore must be some kind of terrorist..err socialist..err democratic ploy.

  62. Bladefist says:

    @crabbyman6: @ratnerstar: @Jaysyn: @Puck:

    Please stop the personal attacks. If you have something important to say to my arguments, say it. Personal attacks will get you banned from here, fyi.

  63. ARP says:

    @Bladefist:

    BF: “Electric cars are inefficient.”
    ARP: You mean as far as their range and recharge times? Yes they currently are. But we’re making huge strides and efficency is increasing much faster than the evolution of the ICE. If you’re saying the physics of electric cars is inefficient, I have to disagree.

    BF: “That said, if we adopted them, the grid wouldn’t be low at night anymore, everyone would be charging their cars.”
    ARP: Right, that’s the point, we’re simply using up execess capacity. As I mentioned, we might have to produce more as I don’t think there’s that much excess capacity.

    BF: “If we are still on coal, that would bring us back to global warming.”
    ARP: Which you think is a scam, but regardless: A centralized coal plant (using modern scrubbers) produces a lot less GHG’s than all the individual ICE engines. So while, its not ideal, its much better than what we have. Also, see above on alternate grid energy sources. It’s similar to power generation- what’s more efficient, a large oil power plant or a lot of little generators. It’s the large centralized power plants that are more efficient. Same goes with the pollution control.

  64. crabbyman6 says:

    @Bladefist: I never attacked you, I don’t know what you’re referring to. If you’re referring to your degree, you brought it up on your own, I was merely congratulating you as I assume you wouldn’t bring it up if it weren’t recent instead of bringing it up in an attempt to make personal attacks on someone yourself.

  65. jdmba says:

    I sincerely hope this is not true. The Los Angeles traffic problem is not going to solve itself, and high gas prices might just be the trick.

  66. ARP says:

    @Bladefist: “I never said anything about ‘negative’ energies. So I don’t provide references for things I don’t say.”

    My bad: please support the following:

    BF: “Forget about Alternative energy. It’s not going to happen. It doesn’t even exist yet.”
    ARP: Wind and solar power exists right now. Tidal and wave power are coming on-line. Also, of course it won’t happen if its not supported. That’s not logical.

    BF: “Expensive ways to harvest inefficient energy that protects the earth from an unscientific crisis.”
    ARP: Wind and Solar are nearing par with Coal and NG in terms of total costs to produce. Electricity is much cheaper to power cars than gas (5X less in costs per mile). While you may not believe that global warming exists- from a pollution perspective, would you rather live next to a solar array or next to a coal plant?

  67. ratnerstar says:

    I should follow my own policy re: feeding trolls. Have fun, guys.

  68. Bladefist says:

    @ARP:

    ARP: Right, that’s the point, we’re simply using up execess capacity. As I mentioned, we might have to produce more as I don’t think there’s that much excess capacity.

    That is a good point. Since we can’t efficient/at all store energy. I’ll admit, I don’t know the cost effectiveness of the KWH and gas, and the cost of the cars. I’ll research that. What I do know is, Americans aren’t going to adopt them, because most people are used to their SUVs and people like horsepower. However, some of the gas/electric hybrids are a step in the right direction.

    @crabbyman6: You are mocking me in a way to make people who haven’t read my comments think I am foolish. You are bringing absolutely nothing to the debate.

  69. Puck says:

    @Bladefist:

    Awesome argument. I’ll take that as you concede.

  70. crabbyman6 says:

    @Bladefist: I think the points made in the post do bring something to the discussion (I strain to call this a debate as many comments are made without reference, including my own since its not a scientific publication). I see you’re going to ignore those though and focus on one thing since they’d be too difficult for you to dispute.

  71. Bladefist says:

    ARP: Wind and solar power exists right now. Tidal and wave power are coming on-line. Also, of course it won’t happen if its not supported. That’s not logical.

    For wind/solar you have to use up a ton of land. It’s not cost effective. Also some people say (i dont fully agree) that the wind turbines are loud, and the solar panels reflect bright lights and heat. In other words, people are complaining.

    I personally support tidal.

  72. Bladefist says:

    @ARP: Well this is my last post on this debate since its not about gas anymore really. We can debate in private message if you want.

    Here is a caller from Rockport, MO, a town that runs on wind.

    I know its Rush Limbaugh, and I know people will think its biased, it probably is. But read the interview. I’ll wait for my Rush Limbaugh attacks.

    [www.rushlimbaugh.com]

  73. Bladefist says:

    @Bladefist: The caller is not from Rockport. My bad.But still a good read.

  74. Dabigkid says:

    @Git Em SteveDave is a poor substitute for LindsayJoy: I love you people who blame everything on the greed of oil companies.

    @Bladefist: Atmospheric measurements say that global warming exists, and a little deduction can help us strongly infer that global warming is caused by humans.

    @Bladefist: You’re hilarious.

    @ARP: “Our dollar is worthless right now. A certain administration caused or contributed to this by reducing the interest rate in response to every economic problem.

    1) Bush has nothing to do with the FED.

    2) Goodie for them for decreasing interest rates every time the economy slows down. I see the FED passed macroecon 101. How about you?

  75. kidincredible says:

    @Bladefist: Yes, except that you’re only speaking in absolute terms. If you want to take the layman’s approach (the only approach that will work on the population en masse) you have to devise terms that work on a low logical level. If you know that current oil methods are unsustainable, while other sources, wind, solar and the like are sustainable, you brand the sustainable one as renewable.

    Could this be solved by calling them sustainable and non-sustainable energy sources? Yes. Does the average deep south American truly understand sustainability? Probably not. So to get votes in the south, democrats need to speak in terms they understand.

    (Any of this is not personal dogma, just hypothesis… don’t flame me for assuming this is how I feel on the issue.)

    For equal time, are Democrats promoting technologies that are inefficient and not cost-effective? Yes.

    Food for thought. Why not take all the money we’re spending on developing alternative energy sources like ethanol and give it to France in exchange for their safe nuclear technology and techniques? Isn’t something like 2/3 of France and 1/2 of London powered by France’s nuclear technology? And I may be misinformed (thanks 20/20) but I thought they had a method of storing spent rods in a pool for ~50 years to avoid a Yucca Mountain sort of situation over there.

  76. @cf27: If you believe that oil companies have that much control over their prices, then why is gas not at $6.00 a gallon or $10.00 a gallon. If oil companies could just increase profits by increasing pump prices, then why did they ever let me buy gas at $0.79 a gallon (in 1999)? They would have made a lot more money charging me $4.00. Why would oil companies ever reduce prices?

    I strongly believe that Big Oil has a lot of room to inflate/lower pump prices. If they aren’t able to, and interested in, keeping pump prices as high as the market will reasonably bear, then how else did Exxon earn profits of over $40 Billion in 2007?

  77. stevegoz says:

    @heavylee-again: The same way Change Bank does so well — sheer volume.

  78. pal003 says:

    Conversations in PA and OH (and other places) are to vote out all Republicans, because – Republicans = Big Oil profits.

    I suspect that is part of this reason to hope gas prices drop – but it will need to go much more below $3.50 to make a difference in people’s perspective.

  79. julienne says:

    Media whore. HAHAHAHA!

  80. newgalactic says:

    @Bladefist: Are you trying to tell us that Bush and company are responsible for the price of oil going down? That’s absolutely absurd. Dana Perino herself was hesitant to claim any responsibility for the fall in recent oil prices, and you can bet that every politician in Washington would take credit for good circumstances if it was at all possible that they might be responsible. No, the recent fall in oil prices has to do with Americans not being able to afford gas and buying less, thus increasing supply. It has nothing to do with Bush releasing restrictions on off shore drilling.

    I’ll tell you the motivation for Bush releasing restrictions on off shore drilling…wait for it …money. He’s an oil man for gosh sakes, along with his friends and presidential sponsors. They all want to sell as much oil as they can to a WORLD MARKET as they can while the price is high. Do you actually think drilling off of Americas coasts will produce oil for America? No, It’ll be in China before the week is out. Personally, I would wish that we keep as much oil as possible close to ourselves for the day when it gets really valuable.

  81. Sudonum says:

    @Bladefist:
    Nuclear is more expensive than most other energy sources, including wind.
    [blogs.tnr.com]
    One company is getting out of the business of building nuclear plants and instead is investing in clean coal plants.
    [www.tulsaworld.com]
    And regarding lifting the drilling ban, according to this report by this administrations EIA, completed at the request of Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, drilling in the ANWR would lower the price of a barrel of oil by a whopping, wait for it, a whopping $0.75 per barrel! That’s $0.75 as in 75 cents a barrel savings.
    Here is the EIA report. The cost statement is in the last paragraph of page 6. You’ll have to cut and paste it as the link wouldn’t work. “http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/pdf/sroiaf(2008)03.pdf”
    As T. Boone Pickens, an oil man and (former?) supporter of this president says, “we can’t drill our way out this mess”.

  82. hustler says:

    Why lower fuel prices, when you can raise them to compensate for the loss in demand? Its time to make fuel $20 per gallon because will take time to adjust infrastructure while life goes on, so anyone in the fuel business could jab users in the face a few times and make big money.

    See how much offshore drilling helped? If you don’t give them what they want, you should expect them to get angry and raise prices. You have to give them what they want, or else. Always give in to corporate interests, its part of your enslavement.

  83. trujunglist says:

    @Bladefist:

    I think the reason that people “can’t just be happy” is because that’s really not very smart. That is how conservatives deal with reality in general; temporary fixes. Gas prices too high? Gas tax holiday baby! Everyone party with the $40 you’ll save! Economy going down the shitter? Everyone have $600! Everyone happy yet? Everyone happy now! Ignore the larger problems with our temporary boost of happy!
    The Republican party is stuck in the ’80s. They think another bump or line will get the country through the bleary eyed, 5 in the morning crash bad times, while the Democrats are trying to get the country into rehab.

  84. hustler says:

    who cares what the state of the nation is? Success is dictated by stock prices.

  85. trujunglist says:

    @Bladefist:

    Wind turbines are loud. So are the solar installations that they’re installing in various places in the southwest. The problem is not so much that they are loud, which they are, but that there are many of them all in one place, and that place happens to be out in the middle of nowhere. Land isn’t really the issue, because there’s tons and tons of vacant land. It’s the people that are already near or on the land.
    I’m with you on the tidal or wave power installations, which have that advantage and many others.

  86. hustler says:

    I’m going to have one hell off a laugh when we have an alternative at the pump to oil, and prices fall like the world trade center.

  87. cf27 says:

    @heavylee-again: Of course each oil company keeps their prices as high as the market will reasonably bear. But, that’s true in every industry. When you sell something, you want as high of a price as you can get.

    However, what the “market will reasonably bear” is based on the laws of supply and demand. Do you know what would happen if Exxon were to reduce their price below what the market would bear? Answer: there would be shortages. Sure, prices would be lower, but you would have to wait in line to get gas, and some people would have to do without.

    Exxon made a lot of money last year because a lot of people wanted to buy gasoline and the petroleum industry only has the capacity to provide so much.

    You haven’t answered my question — if ExxonMobil is artificially keeping the price high to boost its bottom line, then why didn’t they also do it in 1999? Why can’t they boost it up to $6.00 a gallon and make even more money?

    In 2007, Exxon made about 10% on its sales, which is about what they made in 2003 and every year in between. $40B profit sounds like an awful lot, until you realize that their sales were about $400B.

  88. TVarmy says:

    The bad news is that by then the dollar will equal about 25 cents compared to today’s dollar. My guess as to why? Grocery shrink ray accidentally hits the commodities market and Fort Knox in a tragic attempt to shrink the size of chicken eggs.

  89. Cap'n Jack says:

    I don’t think that Americans will suddenly start spending more, even if gas does go down in price, given the current economic woes.

  90. TouchMyMonkey says:

    @Bladefist: What speech? According to THIS, the announcement to lift the offshore drilling ban occurred on 14 July. Ten days ago. What happened to oil in those ten days:

    NOTHING! Until the 15th. An “immediate” reaction? An A -> B thing? Uh, no. According to the timestamp on the DU thread that linked the MSNBC article, Bush made his announcement not later than 10 AM on 7/14, and oil stayed high until at least 10:30 AM on 7/15. Finally, as soon as Bush made his announcement, Congress threw ice water all over it, saying Hell would freeze over before they follow suit. So no reaction. Didn’t happen.

    What did happen? Reduced demand and investigations into the shenanigans that pushed oil to nearly $150 in the first place, that’s what. You think we just kept driving our Hummers all this time as if nothing had happened? Wake up and smell the Maxwell House.

  91. Imakeholesinu says:

    Still not low enough for me at $3.50. Bring back the good ol days of 2.50 a gallon.

  92. papahoth says:

    @Bladefist: you delude yourself. how does this impact oil what so ever? it’s removal does nothing. i guess the indians and chinese woke up that day and used less gas.

  93. papahoth says:

    @Bladefist: at least we won’t be renewing the republicans going forward.

  94. papahoth says:

    Time to increase the gas tax to make sure that it does not fall below $3.50 a gallon. How? By getting rid of the tax of x amount per gallon and instead making it a percentage on sales, just like every other tax. Its time to stop feeding Chavez, Suadia Arabia, Iran, and all the other oil crap holes out there. Drill here (off shore is useless, too expensive, too dangerous to the environment and too slow) and keep the windmills, solar, and fart power going.

  95. TexasScout says:

    I was in Victoria Texas all day today. The price dropped twice while I was there. When I left it was $3.66

  96. oldheathen says:

    Yay! I’m *sure* this means my milk will again reach its expiration date sans chunks.

  97. econobiker says:

    @cf27: “If you believe that oil companies have that much control over their prices, then why is gas not at $6.00 a gallon or $10.00 a gallon. If oil companies could just increase profits by increasing pump prices, then why did they ever let me buy gas at $0.79 a gallon (in 1999)? They would have made a lot more money charging me $4.00. Why would oil companies ever reduce prices?”

    I think that oil companies were charging 97¢ a gallon in 1999 due to Sadam selling oil at below market prices on the black market (maybe some extra with that UN “Oil for Food” deal). He sold oil this way after Gulf War I to rebuild his cheesy palaces and buy Uday more sports cars. I believe that this is one factor why we went to war in Iraq a second time. The Saudi’s were mad that Saddam had been messing with the prices for so long and needed to remove him.

    Anyone ever wonder why oil went -UP- after the US took over Iraq? If Saddam had not been underselling the oil we probably would have seen $3 per gal (USA) back in 1999 or 2000. And why Saddams undercutting affect everyone by lowering prices? Well, the other “legal” oil guys then have to lower prices or else they don’t sell any oil because everyone flocks to the lowest seller. A while back I read that the bulk oil business is pretty shady with oil trading hands and being sold several times even while it is the tanker on the way to the refineries…

  98. Mr.SithNinja says:

    Yeah, right! I could also grow a set of big floppy ears on my sack and star in a remake of Dumbo.

  99. stevejust says:

    @Bladefist: I p0wned you guys in science.

    Your internetz license needs to be revoked.

    You have said in this thread the electric cars are “inefficient” and that hydrogen cars are the only alternative technology that even comes close.

    You are exactly wrong about both, and you couldn’t possibly be MORE WRONG.

    Let me take a second to explain it to you. First of all, electric cars are inherently more efficient than cars that use a combustible fuel, whether it be gasoline, diesel, or natural gas. Or for that matter cars like the BMW 7 series hydrogen car, which is capable of running on either gasoline or hydrogen by combustion. [alternativefuels.about.com]

    If you don’t understand this, you don’t understand physics. Let me direct you to the Tesla Roadster (an electric car) website for an explanation which depicts wheel-to-wheel efficiency in km/Mj for several highly efficient cars: [www.teslamotors.com]

    What you will learn rather quickly is that electric engines are always more efficient than combustion engines. Gasoline engines are about 30% efficient. Diesel engines are about 40% efficient. [en.wikipedia.org] But electric engines are far more efficient, more in the range of 80% or more (it gets complicated when you start talking about loads, etc.,.). The Tesla engine for example, claims 85-95% efficiency. [www.teslamotors.com]

    Okay let’s say you’re not talking about combustion engines, but you’re talking about fuel cells that use hydrogen to create electricity like the Honda FCX Clarity. [automobiles.honda.com] These are the kinds of cars most people think of when they talk about hydrogen cars.

    In that case, the hydrogen needs to be extracted and stored. This takes energy, i.e., electricity. It is far more fuel efficient to just put that electricity straight into the car. Especially when you could be getting that electricity from a PV panel on the roof of your garage.

    So you’d rather use electricity, in order to get hydrogen, in order to put it back into a car, in order for it to become electricity again to drive the car? You, sir, are a genius. Certifiable. Einstein’s legacy is in jeopardy. Michio Kaku should be calling you up any minute for an interview for his show.

    P.S. You said the sun only “transfers” energy. Huh? You do know that “the sun is a mass of incandescent gas — A gigantic nuclear furnace where hydrogen is built into helium at a temperature of millions of degrees….” Don’t you?

    /rant

  100. Dabigkid says:

    @stevejust: Ah, I love TMBG!

  101. stevejust says:

    @Dabigkid: I’m surprised anyone read that diatribe that long. Here’s exhibit A:


    + Watch video

  102. VikingP77 says:

    @stevejust: Nice! Bladefist likes to comment absolutes but cannot take it when they are disputed.

  103. stevejust says:

    @VikingP77: Not only disputed, but I can’t imagine someone being more wrong about almost everything that comes out of his mouth.

    I picked the low hanging fruit, like the idea that the sun only “transfers” energy. But almost everything I’ve ever seen written by the guy is just wrong, and I’m not just saying this because I disagree with his politics. It’s easy to show when someone’s going to fail to understand that the sun is a nuclear reactor, yet talk about now he pwn3ed people “at science.”

    It’s too bad it would take too long on some of the more subjective things he says.

  104. ageshin says:

    My just in time for the up coming elections. By the way who said 3.50 a gal. gas was cheep. If it got down to 1.50 I might be impressed. The experts don’t know what they are talking about, because gas prices are determined by the gas cartel and not so called market forces.

  105. pigbearpug says:

    @hustler: Dude, WTF? Too soon. And will be for at least 20 more years. Ass.

  106. mzs says:

    @heavylee-again The reason oil companies want to lower prices now is so that by the time the elections role around people will have forgotten about it.